Teams & Riders Froome Talk Only

[Ripper]

Re: Re:

I'm Scottish, not Kenyan

That's really too bad for the Scots! Dang it!

 

[Ripper]

Re:

Second fastest Giro after Menchov - Di Luca showdown in 2009. All is good.

Wow. That was a supercharged race too. Just completely supercharged! Di Luca still cracks me up.

I cannot understand why folks who like Froome defend against the accusations. By all means like the guy and root for him if you want, it's not a big deal. But for the love of god open your eyes - he was a donkey, then in the space of a summer he became the ultimate racehorse. And no, he did not "have the engine before and need to lose the fat". Otherwise previous TTs would still have been absolutely WC level. The world class TT man who lost weight argument would actually be much more in line with Dumoulin

 

[rick james]

Re: Re:

You're both British.

Scotland will never be a free country.

what you talking about free country?



you haven't a clue

 

[MartinGT]

Come on now. Ball not man.

 

[JosephK]

Re: Re:

Second fastest Giro after Menchov - Di Luca showdown in 2009. All is good.

Wow. That was a supercharged race too. Just completely supercharged! Di Luca still cracks me up.

I cannot understand why folks who like Froome defend against the accusations. By all means like the guy and root for him if you want, it's not a big deal. But for the love of god open your eyes - he was a donkey, then in the space of a summer he became the ultimate racehorse. And no, he did not "have the engine before and need to lose the fat". Otherwise previous TTs would still have been absolutely WC level. The world class TT man who lost weight argument would actually be much more in line with Dumoulin

A 26-year-old donkey, I might add.

 

[MartinGT]

https://twitter.com/willfoth/status/1000809313622003715?s=19

 

[luckyboy]

Does anybody have that old Team Sky graph showing where they expected their riders to end up in their career vs their age? Like some were GC contenders, some domestiques and then Froome was like borderline WorldTour rider or something.

Must've been from 2010/11? Lofkvist and Augustyn were on there too, I think.

 

[roundabout]

It's literally 3 pages back (with 20 posts per page)

 

[luckyboy]

Oh, lol - expected it to be buried somewhere years ago. I don't really keep up with this thread

 

[Koronin]

Re:

While the way they win may change, the underlying problem that explains why Froome and Sky have never been taken to heart by a large (and admittedly vocal) section of the fanbase remains the same: they feel like their intelligence is being insulted.

The thing is, the complete do-over on Froome's form coming into the season may have given the impression Froome was distinctly undercooked coming into the Giro, having not been his regular, dominant self, but at the same time we've never really seen Froome Mark II (the good Froome) prepare for the Giro, so maybe all of that was in line with where they wanted his form to be at the time. Or maybe his miracle malfunctioning kidney returned. We just don't know. See, that malfunctioning kidney is exactly what we're talking about when we talk about fans' intelligence being insulted - fans have been asked to swallow some seriously stupid excuses before. And defending such cases is not so much about proving that the excuse given is what did happen, but about proving that the reasoning given is plausible enough to introduce sufficient doubt that the doping explanation is not the only possible explanation. From a regulatory perspective, if the prosecution cannot provide evidence that irrevocably confirms that doping was the purpose, and the defence provides evidence that something other than doping could have caused the anomaly, it doesn't matter if 99,9999% of likelihoods point to doping, the regulators cannot say with certainty that it was doping. That doesn't change the most likely outcome being doping, but makes it harder to issue a suspension. Lots of riders have provided unconvincing excuses for doping, and while most have become cycling in-jokes (vanishing twins, beer and a shot, sex), some have actually been successful arguing their improbable explanations (Daryl Impey springs to mind immediately) for that very reason.

So the man with his malfunctioning kidney, severe asthma (which was not mentioned in his book which came out shortly before his being filmed puffing on an inhaler in the Tour de Romandie, which he won convincingly thanks to a TUE for prednisolone, without which apparently he would have been too sick to race. Must suck to be on a team like Mitchelton-Scott where you don't have a fast track into the system and riders suffering from allergies just have to lose time. Maybe that's the revolution Sky were bringing to cycling, hey?) and severe dehydration just happened to regain all the time he lost the previous day in a Vuelta where he held the leader's jersey for 18 days. It doesn't matter how implausible it is, because what the lawyers have to do, realistically, is prove that it isn't impossible, and put the onus back onto the prosecution to prove that the intention was to cheat. It doesn't matter that anybody who wants to keep up the belief that Sky are the 100% clean all singing all dancing revolution the sport needs will have to produce a similarly miraculous level of mental contortion in order to justify this explanation and that almost every man and his dog has come around to the realisation that Froome is at least using every performance-enhancing substance he can feasibly get away with, if not using ones he can't. After all, they don't even pretend to hide it, with him swigging from miniature bottles and puffing on his inhaler in full view of the cameras at various times in his career.

The problem is, Sky and Froome are now in a much worse position in the PR war. The presence of that positive test, regardless of whether being for a controlled substance rather than an explicitly forbidden one, has shone a light onto the team that once and for all extinguishes the lingering residual flickering flame of their anti-doping policy. The Sky fans that five years ago were dismissing the criticisms of Wiggins and Froome and touting the team's commitment to clean cycling and successfully marginalising the voices of doubt have progressively seen their standards, and expectations, lowered and lowered again until we're now in the rather unflattering position where the defence of Sky almost entirely rests on criticizing people who kick against what they're seeing for cheering other suspected or confirmed dopers, either not ackowledging or not recognizing the change in themselves and their arguments from supporting the team that is changing cycling for the better, to supporting the team that is "no worse than any of the others" - and resenting the fact that they attract more criticism and more hate, due to the intelligence-insulting BS that they themselves used to parrot in order to get a rise from the doubters.

That all changed when the AAF came out. That was the point at which Team Sky, and Chris Froome in particular, ceded once and for all their claim to the moral high ground. Not that we didn't already have a mountain of circumstantial evidence - but there wasn't a smoking gun. Now, is a positive test for salbutamol truly a smoking gun? No, it isn't - nobody in their right mind is going to claim that salbutamol alone is responsible for the enormous performance increases we see at Team Sky - but it was proof positive (sic) that the system was being gamed by the team that promised they wouldn't do that. It wasn't a surprise to most sceptics - they claimed they would never hire any doctor involved in cycling and then hired Geert Leinders and Fabio Bartalucci; they claimed they would never hire anyone involved in doping ever and then hired Mick Rogers and Michael Barry; they claimed they would withdraw riders from races rather than get TUEs, and we've seen both Froome and Wiggins win races where they have obtained TUEs and heard Shane Sutton openly state that obtaining those TUEs - whether used for a legitimate medical need or pre-emptive - was one of their marginal gains. But a positive test meant that the press, which had largely been willing to buy the feel-good narrative until the Jiffy Bag story and the Fancy Bears TUE revelations, could no longer see no evil.

But it's Sky's reaction to this that has raised people's ire more than anything else. They haven't just pretended it's business as usual; they've run and hid. Brailsford of course has previous for this, remembering him literally running away from Daniel Benson asking him how the investigation into Leinders was going back in 2012. Brailsford has been avoiding the press at all turns, then at the pre-Giro press conference claiming about his openness - he's been at all the races, so the press just haven't seen fit to ask him questions, notwithstanding that he's hidden away at the bus and avoided interviews, and when he has he's given even more circuitous non-answer answers than usual, and refused to handle any questions pertaining to the ongoing situation (while commenting on the specifics of the case may not be possible due to the ongoing proceedings, he's used that as an excuse to not answer some only tangentially related questions, such as conditional outcomes and how this meshes with Team Sky's stated anti-doping policy). He's doubled down on supporting Froome, and then been in hiding for most of the Giro, only to emerge at the last minute to gloat and take personal credit for Froome's spectacular stage 19 ride.

And then you have the ride itself. I've been over a few times how the transformation of Froome, his style on a bike and his paucity of results before his contract was up and he said avada khedavra and became the rider we now know mean that it's harder for fans to suspend their disbelief with him than with other riders' doped exploits, because it's harder to rationalize him as the best cyclist in the world for those reasons. And that's part of the reason why a rider flying away with 80km and three mountains to go and winning solo by minutes isn't being bought in many quarters as a heroic throwback to the golden days of yore, but as a disgusting power play. Froome himself must surely know that a performance like this in 2018 is going to be received much more negatively than even if he himself did it five years ago, because when you're under investigation for doping and pull out a miracle comeback of that kind, surely in his heart of hearts he knows this is not going to be interpreted as a wounded champion putting on a show like Bernard Hinault into Ávila in 1983, but as a brazen display of "you can't catch me" from a known doper? Were the Sky fans who are cheering Froome to this Giro victory similarly enthused by Alejandro Valverde's two year stint as a fugitive from CONI, winning left right and centre between giving CONI a blood test after the Prato Nevoso stage in 2008 (oh look, another link to today) and eventually being suspended in 2010? The comparison was made, many years ago, to an action movie when the hero has got the villain in for questioning, they know they're the bad guy but they haven't got a charge, so the villain is taunting them, mocking them, and the hero can't do anything about it. That's a good comparison - especially when Brailsford emerges from his Keyser Soze slumber to publicly gloat about the triumph - at this stage it's become evident that Sky are very much villains of the piece, and in many ways have been shown up as that most unlikable of villains, the pontificating moralizer that casts judgement on others, incites people against them, but is simultaneously just as guilty themselves. Remember, these guardians of the morals of cycling also have a known racist in the ranks who they refused to sanction until it was at minimum loss to themselves, and who apparently deliberately tried to injure a fellow competitor for publicizing that.

It is in this light that we must cast the actions of stages 19 and 20. George Bennett has said that the anti-doping (and largely anti-Sky or anti-Froome or both) twitterati have treated him as going to bat for them even if he isn't meaning things to the same extent as they think - however there is also another element to that, in that the interview that was given immediately post-race is a much more instant reaction. I'm sure Bennett will have thought about the stage in greater detail later on and come to a more nuanced position, but his immediate response was one of almost amused shock, and even if many have attributed greater value to his words than were intended, that in and of itself speaks volumes. There is also the possibility that following Lotto-Jumbo themselves distancing themselves from his comments (that they posted for everybody to see), Bennett's partial retraction of his comments may also have in mind the fact that Sky have thrown their weight around with people who say or do things they don't like before (remember Peter Kennaugh screaming in Rasmussen's face, Aru being shoved almost off the road for not waiting for Froome in the Tour, or Phil Deignan outing Pauline Ferrand-Prévot's personal business at the same time his fiancée was begging for her privacy to be respected) and we must remember that cycling is a pack sport, so getting on the wrong side of the teams who can strong-arm you could jeopardise future results and earnings.

At this stage, with the likes of Moscon, Brailsford's disappearing and reappearing act, and Froome making miracle comeback rides while under investigation, it's almost like Team Sky have reached the point where they're kicking against the ***, in their mindset. They've tried to present themselves as the good guys, and that's not worked, so now they're embracing their role as the bête noire of the fanbase, and actively enjoying being ruthless, trampling on opponents (at another time or from another team, the slow-down to allow Dumoulin to return and then sprinting away from him might not be so ill received, but from Froome and Poels at this stage - remember Poels doing his Leonardo Piepoli job on Angliru too - it just looked like a calculated move to disrespect Dumoulin, who we must remember went on record in March saying that Froome shouldn't be racing) and fanning the flames of the hostile responses they're given. It's almost like, if our reputation's going down, we're gonna go down swinging, and take as many results as we can on the way - in much the same way, you could argue, as the likes of Astana or indeed Valverde. So nobody should be surprised by the hostile response. After all, we're now at the stage where the all-singing, all-dancing 100% clean team has now been surpassed in the quality of its anti-doping protocols by such luminary clean teams as Lampre, given their response to the Ulissi positive.

And of course the UCI and ASO are worried. This Giro has now proven to them that if Froome wants something, there's a good chance that if he lines up for the race and they can't stop him, they can't stop him winning it. At this stage, everything Froome wins is bad for business for the sport. The hardcore fanbase may not change, but the issue has always been that Froome is not a popular champion. When you have an unpopular champion and people think he can be beaten and will tune in to see him beaten, that's ok. But when you have an unpopular champion and people don't believe that he can be beaten, or think that he's getting it all his own way, then they are less likely to tune in. And when he's performing like this while under investigation, with the fanbase having the full knowledge that he's either facing a ban or these results could be taken away in the near future, what reason do they have for believing what they're seeing?

The thing is, what we've been seeing from Froome this last few months is, in effect, what historically has been a selling point for the Volta a Portugal. The Volta is a cult favourite of the hardcore fanbase, a cartoonish version of cycling served without moral pretence, full of comically fast speeds, absurdly counter-productive tactics, fratricidal battles and fantastical exploits. But the reason the Volta works like that is because nobody buys it as being clean cycling. The World Tour, the Grand Tours, the Monuments and all those other races at the very pinnacle of the sport have that obligation to protect their brand, and maintaining the conception that we're watching a fair fight is a large part of that. By contrast, the Volta is a sideshow attraction which, due to a relatively lowly status and its difficulty, is somewhat marginal compared to the very pinnacle of the sport, which enables fans to enjoy it for what it is guilt-free. There's no pretence that it is anything other than a freak show. Maybe if we gave up that pretence with Chris Froome, we could enjoy his exploits a bit more.

Good write up. The biggest thing I've been surprised about is that there are riders (more than I've seen before with any other specific rider) willing to question Froome even if it's subtle.

Now as for is everyone scared or worried about what Sky/Froome may do if they out and out say something, one team would not be and that's Movistar. They've had a running fued with Sky since 2012 and have no problem reminding people they do not like and do not get along with Sky. The thing is they usually stay quiet and keep to themselves vs getting involved in much unless it directly effects them. However, one thing to remember is that at Catalonia last year when the UCI got them angry by changing the penalty on them 3-4 times they made a comment do not push us to far and do not make us too angry because with the secrets we know about this sport and the evidence and documentation and we can bring this sport to it's knees. If Movistar and/or one of their riders truly decides to say something would Sky be willing to risk everything to go after a team that knows the secrets of the sport dating back to the 70's? Yes this is the team that is more than willing to continue their on going fued with Sky.

 

[roundabout]

Who said what now after Catalunya?

 

[roundabout]

Re:

Does anybody have that old Team Sky graph showing where they expected their riders to end up in their career vs their age? Like some were GC contenders, some domestiques and then Froome was like borderline WorldTour rider or something.

Must've been from 2010/11? Lofkvist and Augustyn were on there too, I think.

And really that graphic is bad. Froome's performances were bad, but hardly a tier below Pauwels/Carlström or (my favorite) nearly 2 tiers below Michael Barry bad.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

He has a British passport. His mother was British. He was brought up in a colonial British environment that has little to do with Britain. He's about as British as any South African with an Anglo surname.

The good old schizophrenic imperialistic-xenophobic side of Great Britain.

Done some day trips to Vancouver, yeah? Really leave it all alone.

 

[Koronin]

Re:

Who said what now after Catalunya?

After the TTT (2017) Catalonia and the changing of the penalty that Movistar ended up with like 3 or 4 times Movistar made a comment that if we are pushed too far and made too angry we know more than enough secrets about this sport to bring it to it's knees. Someone from Movistar's management made the comment. Of course they also said at the same time their riders although riding in the race would not participate. So there was that as well.

 

[bigcog]

Re: Re:

You hope he ends up that way. I can't see it, he might lose 1 or 2 GTs but not all of them. Anyway dream on

Or I know something you don't.

Remember, I was once banned here for congratulating Nibali on his second Vuelta win before news of Froome's AAF broke out.

Retrospective test results or something else or are you trolling ?

How disappointing

 

[roundabout]

Re: Re:

Who said what now after Catalunya?

After the TTT (2017) Catalonia and the changing of the penalty that Movistar ended up with like 3 or 4 times Movistar made a comment that if we are pushed too far and made too angry we know more than enough secrets about this sport to bring it to it's knees. Someone from Movistar's management made the comment. Of course they also said at the same time their riders although riding in the race would not participate. So there was that as well.

Sorry, but the implications of that comment if true are too great for it not to have been widely reported. So I am leaning towards it not actually being said.

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

Who said what now after Catalunya?

After the TTT (2017) Catalonia and the changing of the penalty that Movistar ended up with like 3 or 4 times Movistar made a comment that if we are pushed too far and made too angry we know more than enough secrets about this sport to bring it to it's knees. Someone from Movistar's management made the comment. Of course they also said at the same time their riders although riding in the race would not participate. So there was that as well.

Sorry, but the implications of that comment if true are too great for it not to have been widely reported. So I am leaning towards it not actually being said.

It was said, but I think it was thought of as just management being pissed and not being taken seriously.

 

[hfer07]

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

 

[Koronin]

Re:

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

Actually they do that will prove without a shadow of a doubt they are into major doping. When Valverde, well known as the most consistent rider in the peloton, can't top 10 in all 3 GTs in one year we know if anyone does better they are heavily doping. Truthfully I think in some ways this is actually worse than the Armstrong era simply because fans are much more cynical to begin with and I think (or it appears) that both fans and other riders are more willing to call it out as well.

 

[JosephK]

Re: Re:

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

Actually they do that will prove without a shadow of a doubt they are into major doping. When Valverde, well known as the most consistent rider in the peloton, can't top 10 in all 3 GTs in one year we know if anyone does better they are heavily doping. Truthfully I think in some ways this is actually worse than the Armstrong era simply because fans are much more cynical to begin with and I think (or it appears) that both fans and other riders are more willing to call it out as well.

After victories in the TDF and Vuelta, CF will go to the Worlds and launch from 50K out to win the road-race title. Sagan, Terpstra, Gilbert, and Van Avermaet form the chase group, but unable to follow. :lol:

 

[Koronin]

Re: Re:

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

Actually they do that will prove without a shadow of a doubt they are into major doping. When Valverde, well known as the most consistent rider in the peloton, can't top 10 in all 3 GTs in one year we know if anyone does better they are heavily doping. Truthfully I think in some ways this is actually worse than the Armstrong era simply because fans are much more cynical to begin with and I think (or it appears) that both fans and other riders are more willing to call it out as well.

After victories in the TDF and Vuelta, CF will go to the Worlds and launch from 50K out to win the road-race title. Sagan, Terpstra, Gilbert, and Van Avermaet form the chase group, but unable to follow. :lol:

LMAO, may as well make a complete mockery out of it.

 

[ppanther92]

Re: Re:

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

Actually they do that will prove without a shadow of a doubt they are into major doping. When Valverde, well known as the most consistent rider in the peloton, can't top 10 in all 3 GTs in one year we know if anyone does better they are heavily doping. Truthfully I think in some ways this is actually worse than the Armstrong era simply because fans are much more cynical to begin with and I think (or it appears) that both fans and other riders are more willing to call it out as well.

After victories in the TDF and Vuelta, CF will go to the Worlds and launch from 50K out to win the road-race title. Sagan, Terpstra, Gilbert, and Van Avermaet form the chase group, but unable to follow. :lol:

Not really the best chase group on a mountainous stage though...

 

[Squire]

Re: Re:

Does anybody have that old Team Sky graph showing where they expected their riders to end up in their career vs their age? Like some were GC contenders, some domestiques and then Froome was like borderline WorldTour rider or something.

Must've been from 2010/11? Lofkvist and Augustyn were on there too, I think.

And really that graphic is bad. Froome's performances were bad, but hardly a tier below Pauwels/Carlström or (my favorite) nearly 2 tiers below Michael Barry bad.

There are a million legitimate ways to discredit Team Sky, but that graph is not one of them.

It had nothing to do with how Sky viewed their riders. It showed Brailsford's career trajectory curve, coupled with what kind of results each rider had achieved at that point, plotted in by whatever media outlet who published it (can't remember who).

It basically means nothing.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

At this point, the real question is:

WHY NOT GOING FOR THE """TRIPLE"""" THIS YEAR?
WHY NOT? WHY STOPPING AT LE TOUR WHEN HE & SKY CAN GO ALL THE WAY TO SPAIN .......

The sport has fallen into the horrors & shames of the Armstrong era yet again, so why not going full genius this time around? Froome & SKY have no shame, they care less, ASO or UCI either for that matter...

Actually they do that will prove without a shadow of a doubt they are into major doping. When Valverde, well known as the most consistent rider in the peloton, can't top 10 in all 3 GTs in one year we know if anyone does better they are heavily doping. Truthfully I think in some ways this is actually worse than the Armstrong era simply because fans are much more cynical to begin with and I think (or it appears) that both fans and other riders are more willing to call it out as well.

Dude wtf. They already proved that a long time ago. 5 out of 6 tdfs and 3*gts in a row on a team where a wiggins said in 2012 that you know he's clean because he only won one tour and didn't dominate like Armstrong

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Does anybody have that old Team Sky graph showing where they expected their riders to end up in their career vs their age? Like some were GC contenders, some domestiques and then Froome was like borderline WorldTour rider or something.

Must've been from 2010/11? Lofkvist and Augustyn were on there too, I think.

And really that graphic is bad. Froome's performances were bad, but hardly a tier below Pauwels/Carlström or (my favorite) nearly 2 tiers below Michael Barry bad.

There are a million legitimate ways to discredit Team Sky, but that graph is not one of them.

It had nothing to do with how Sky viewed their riders. It showed Brailsford's career trajectory curve, coupled with what kind of results each rider had achieved at that point, plotted in by whatever media outlet who published it (can't remember who).

It basically means nothing.

It's a perfectly legitimate way to show what Brailsford actually thought of froome, contrary to the "diamond in the rough *** he made up in hindsight about how he knew in 2007 froome was the greatest athlete ever born.